[Albion] 352 what did you think?

Napier's Knee · Jan 21, 2018

Might work if:
1. It was practised during the week with the back three. No evidence of that yesterday - they were shambolic. Uwe would be excellent in the middle with Dunk and Goldson beside him
2. A strong central midfielder to provide some cover and transition

jackanada · Jan 21, 2018

I've been suggesting this system for a while.
Have to disagree that we were poor defensively.
Stephens deflected a cross that ran kindly for a withdrawal class player, then a goal of the season contender a few minutes later.
Duffy obviously had to be central of he is playing but ideally you want Dunk in there:
Firstly he is as previously pointed out then closer to the danger area to cover. Secondly Dunk has logged excellent advancing into space on the odd occasion. 3 at the back would give him more license to do so.

Glawstergull · Jan 21, 2018

I liked it. Agree Duffy was poor and Hemed just too slow. Hazard movement and vision are world class but I still we stood off him. We seem to be happy to let opponents carry the ball for too long. Bruno backs off and then has to make last ditch tackles in the box.

Bladders · Jan 21, 2018

Acker79 said:
Eh. I don't know that we can judge it from one game.

The point of the 3-5-2 is that it is also 5-3-2 when you're defending. And if we weren't 2-0 down after 6 minutes I think we would have seen it more as a 5 at the back. We won't (touch wood) be torn apart in the first couple of minutes v Southampton, so if we play this formation, it could easily be that 5-3-2, and maybe won't be so attacking (and to be honest, as much as we attacked, I never believed we would score).

We looked massively exposed at the back, particularly Duffy. But is that the formation itself, or that it was pretty much the first time we played it and it was against a Chelsea team that was playing like it had something to prove?

Of course its 5-3-2 when defending, that's the point of the system, very testing for the wing backs too.

But you cant deny when we were on the ball the wing backs were looking to get forward as wingers, ok you can say we were chasing the game so they had to a bit, but I do think this was the plan all along as the game wore on, albeit it came into effect a bit earlier than Hughton expected.

What it did do for me was really show who was good enough for this division yesterday as the formation also relied on pace, quick movement of the ball, and technical ability and vision in the middle of the park.

I'm not naming names after one game but I think most can see who isn't quite upto this level.

Acker79 · Jan 21, 2018

dejavuatbtn said:
Bit weird to give it a try out against a tip 6 team. It will no doubt take a lot of match practice to get it right

Is it? If we're taking the position that top 6 games are wipe outs, why not introduce it then? First, it'll be against one of the better teams, so you're getting an idea of the worst pressure you'll be under. Second, if introducing a new system is going to take a few games to get used to, you want errors to occur in the games that you're going to lose least in. If we introduce a new system in a winnable game, but the new system costs us, that's a potential 3 points lost, if you introduce it in an almost definitely lost game and the new system costs us, what have we lost?

If we use it again in our next game, we're going in with a bit more experience, will have found out, in match, what some of the issues are and worked on them in training, etc. so will better execute it when we can win something.

Bladders said:
ok you can say we were chasing the game so they had to a bit, but I do think this was the plan all along as the game wore on, albeit it came into effect a bit earlier than Hughton expected.

But that is kinda my point. We didn't get on the ball until we were 2-0 down, so had to attack. How long will we sit back in a 5-3-2 when we aren't chasing the game? Personally, I need to see a few more games in this system before I feel comfortable judging whether it's better than what we've done in the past. Also see if the new striker can add the cutting edge, the finishing that we sorely miss.

I would also not write off any of the players on one game in the new system.

mreprice · Jan 21, 2018

I liked it. Allowed Gross to get in good positions and Propper to get forward. Definitely created a lot more chances without looking any weaker defensively

pishhead · Jan 21, 2018

I think we should definitely give it another go. We seem to have the players that suit the formation.

Billy the Fish · Jan 21, 2018

Good going forward, shambles at the back.

If you haven't watched it already watch the analysis on MOTD which is spot on. The back 3 didn't know which runner to track and who should go to the ball, this allowed their front 3 to just drift in between our players and play one touch football. If our players are touch tight in the first place the first two goals don't happen.

It didn't help that Chelsea's movement up front was so good, or that Duffy is a shadow of the player he wad at the moment.

Think it could work well against the lesser teams, yesterday was the wrong time to try out because Hazard is so good at finding space in tight areas.

at15155 · Jan 21, 2018

I worry about this formation. It means we can only play two of either Bruno, Stunner, Bong, Schelotto, Knockaert, Izquierdo and March. Choosing two out of those seven is tough (this is assuming we would play with two strikers up top when Locadia is fit but I feel March did well up there).

BrianWade4 · Jan 21, 2018

Liked
Obviously the first 5 mins were a mess but worked well after that
Lots of chances and the 2 penalties meant we deserved the 4-2 lead at half-time

Bladders · Jan 21, 2018

I'd prefer Dunk in the middle with Uwe and Goldson either side.

dazzer6666 · Jan 21, 2018

Acker79 said:
Eh. I don't know that we can judge it from one game.

The point of the 3-5-2 is that it is also 5-3-2 when you're defending. And if we weren't 2-0 down after 6 minutes I think we would have seen it more as a 5 at the back. We won't (touch wood) be torn apart in the first couple of minutes v Southampton, so if we play this formation, it could easily be that 5-3-2, and maybe won't be so attacking (and to be honest, as much as we attacked, I never believed we would score).

We looked massively exposed at the back, particularly Duffy. But is that the formation itself, or that it was pretty much the first time we played it and it was against a Chelsea team that was playing like it had something to prove?

Was it because Duffy had a poor game ?

Acker79 · Jan 21, 2018

dazzer6666 said:
Was it because Duffy had a poor game ?

Yep, that's a possibility, too. An on-form Duffy and the system might be great. Again, if the recent bumpage of Ryan and Schelotto threads wasn't enough of a sign, give it at least a few games rather than rushing to judgement on one performance.

dazzer6666 · Jan 21, 2018

Acker79 said:
Yep, that's a possibility, too. An on-form Duffy and the system might be great. Again, if the recent bumpage of Ryan and Schelotto threads wasn't enough of a sign, give it at least a few games rather than rushing to judgement on one performance.

Spot on...and against teams that don’t have a Hazard playing for them. I don’t think any formation we could have gone with yesterday would have stopped him.

Mike Small · Jan 21, 2018

Formation doesn't bring the best out of Dunk and Gross imo. Liked CH changing something just didn't need 3 big centre backs against their tricky front 3.

Wozza · Jan 21, 2018

I predicted (well, WANTED) this for the Palace game. Shame Chris didn't actually use it for practice.

Wozza said:
Experimental XI.

---------------------------- Krul ----------------------------
------------ Goldson --- Duffy --- Dunk ---------------
Schelotto - Stephens - Pröpper - Kayal - Suttner
---------------- Iziquierdo* --- Hemed**----------------

* Or Baldock
** Or new signing, obv

ac gull · Jan 21, 2018

Jose as left wing back would be rather good for me

If Ashley Young can play left back for Man Utd then Jose can definitely be a left wing back

Dunk needs to be on left of a three, Goldson on the right and BFG in the middle

Surf's Up · Jan 21, 2018

I liked it, Duffy not at his best atm, replace with Uve and use the Middlesboro game to trial it again

DavidinSouthampton · Jan 21, 2018

Shearer on MOTD said our defence was all over the place. but they also sommented on us creating more elsewhere.

But it was entertaining and different and adventurous so worth trying again........ maybe in an FA cup game. We can only get better at it.

Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

[Albion] 352 what did you think?

New member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Twats everywhere

Well-known member

Active member

Well-known member

Technocrat

New member

Well-known member

Twats everywhere

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Shite Supporter

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Share this page